Talk:Rules of Acquisition
The following was moved from Memory_Alpha:Nominations_for_featured_articles due to its more direct relevance to this article than to its qualifications for featured status: :Isn't a good portion of that article non-canon? Because it uses the book "Legends of the Ferengi." If i have been tought one thing its that this site is a stickler for canon and book sare bad for reference and a good portion of the article is written with non-canon info, maybe that info shoudl be delted also? I mean its non-canon so its bad. Bassing this on how Star Trek Star charts seems to be bad? - User:Kahless (signiture added by AJHalliwell) ::That's true. They should be moved to an apocryphal section, or removed all together, as it's most definitely not screen-canon. - AJHalliwell 05:37, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::Maybe i was to hasty because i noticed the book was co-authored by Ira Steven, who is the producer of star trek, so doesn't that qualify it as canon sinc he is in control of the star trek durring the time the book was written? User: Kahless (signiture added by AJHalliwell...again!) ::::Technical manuals are considered potentially canon, but are still counted as Apocrypha I believe. ("Trust-worthy" apocrypha maybe) This is still not screen-canon, and should be moved. - AJHalliwell 07:35, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) : I do believe that this book has been given special dispensation by M/A -- or at least is under dispute (See: Eelwasser). As for the content of this article, the primary/original content containing said information was written by the sites co-founder MinutiaeMan. If I recall correctly, there was also a conversation on Flare some time back that justified or helped justify the fact that the content is at least more acceptable than not, as it should be noted that it was written entirely by DS9's writer/executive producer Ira Steven Behr and staff writer Robert Hewitt Wolfe. Wolfe was involved with several Ferengi episodes and/or episodes featuring a Rule in such episodes as: "Past Tense, Part I", "Prophet Motive", "Family Business", "Bar Association", and "Little Green Men". Behr collaborated with Wolfe in many of the above mentioned episodes as well as: "Rules of Acquisition", "Ferengi Love Songs" and "The Magnificent Ferengi". Together they are, in many ways, responsible for creating the entire "modern" (DS9) Ferengi culture and therefore the book in question should be extended as much creedance as techical comments made by Rick Sternbach (a la tech manuals), mentioned in several locations throughout M/A. Either way, splitting it up into an apocrypha seems unnecessary as long as it is clearly cited, in this case. --Alan del Beccio 09:43, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) Rules 28 and 168 are identical with no explanation given. JDspeeder1 Yeah, I just noticed that too. Why is that? Tobyk777 23:03, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) This discussion has rested for 1 1/2 years now, but seeing that we moved all the stuff derived solely from Sternbach's+Okuda's works (like starship classes and registries) to bg info, limiting canon strictly to on-screen info, I'd assume the same policy applies to the Rules derived only from Legends of the Ferengi. They could still form a large bg part, I assume, but removed from the main article body. Kennelly 13:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC) It could be moved from here to the book's page under a category like "Rules of Acquisition stated in the book" or someting along those lines.– Comtraya 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) =Legends of the Ferengi= I don't have a copy of the Legends of the Ferengi (or Rules of Acquisition) books, but I'm premusing they were published during DS9's run, and so is there an example of a rule premiering in the book before appearing on screen? That would add something to the argument for regarding it as canon. Igotbit 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Page name? Is this page here by choice (is it useful/correct to have the "Ferengi" prefix?) or by necessity (because Rules of Acquisition is a disambiguation page)? If it is the latter, I think we should move this article to the simpler title and disambiguate the episode article with . This article should only stay here if the rules were actually called "Ferengi Rules ..." consistently. Opinions? -- Cid Highwind 21:30, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I agree. (I did have a lot more here to say, but I then realized that I was repeating everything you said.) -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:45, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) A contract is a contract The lines in the text says "is a contract" 3 times. It's an error: in the episode Body Parts, Brunt says "A contract is a contract" and Quark in the meantime says "is a contract" but only to show to him that he knows the rule, so this doesn't mean that the exact lines has 3 times "is a contract"! Moreover, "a contract is a contract is a contract" doesn't make any sense.... wake up, trekkers... *Yes it does. Alright not gramatically but the phrase: "A contract is a contract" is already a piece of tautological nonsense. The further repetition gives emphasis to the dilemma on Quark's part in the episode in question. My vote, leave it as it is Igotbit 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *I think is an error take any sentence to the letter... Is more correct "a contract is a contract" than "a contract is a contract is a contract". Sid-Vicious 19:16, 11 August 2006 :*Earlier in the episode, Rom says the rule in its entirety: "A contract is a contract is a contract". Brunt later repeats it, but is interupted by Quark, who finishes the line. --From Andoria with Love 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Expand or Die Why is that mentioned twice?--// Mac Lover Talk \\ 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :As the note at the bottom of the article says, one episode called it rule #45, one called it #95. Our canon policy does not allow either to take precedence over the other, so both are here. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Whisper your way to success Why is this on here twice, with the same source cited? 24.158.130.161 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Just checked the script and it's only mentioned as 168. Imma remove it. 24.158.130.161 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) You can't free a fish from water. This rule is listed as both #217 and #271, which is it? DaveS86 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)